Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Trent Reznor endorses ISP Tax for Music
Trent Reznor endorses ISP Tax for Music
by commorancy - 1/10/08 11:43 AMFrom: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9847788-7.html
Reznor says, 'For me, I choose the battles I can fight. In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, "All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up your a-- if you want, and it's $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill."'
While I agree that musicians deserved to be compensated fairly for the music they write, tacking on an ISP tax for this purpose is NOT the answer. Musicians do NOT deserve special treatment on ISP bills nor is this the place for this type of charge.
If one group gets a 'tax' like this onto the ISP's bills, then all of the other creative groups will also step up and want compensation (e.g., Video, Film, Fine Artists, Broadway/Film Actors, Writers, Directors, etc). This opens a can of worms that just doesn't work and ultimately no one will get properly compensated without a HUGE levy on each person. Trent Reznor, you're not thinking clearly. You can't compensate one group without compensating every other group that may also be copyright infringed. Sorry Trent, this idea deserves a very quick death.
If you want to make money in the Digital Age, then find a model that encourages people to want to purchase your music. Don't force everyone to compensate you simply because they choose to use the Internet.
Thoughts?
--
Brian W.
Argument slightly out of context..
by commorancy - 1/10/08 11:49 AM In reply to: Trent Reznor endorses ISP Tax for Music by commorancyI should also point out more. My rant was sort of taken out of context. Trent Reznor collabed with Saul Williams and released an Internet CD release similar to Radiohead. Of the ~150k people who downloaded it, only 28k people paid $5 for it. Trent was disappointed in the fact that people wouldn't pay the $5 to get the higher quality version.
The reality is, there aren't that many audiophiles. So, it makes perfect sense that most people would opt for the lower quality and get it free. These sales numbers lead to various questions and the statement of endorsement for the 'Internet MUSIC tax'.
--
Brian W.
I think Tax was the wrong word.
by Renegade Knight - 1/10/08 11:57 AM In reply to: Argument slightly out of context.. by commorancyIt really seemed like what he was describing was more of a "subscription" fee. Pony up, get in the door, all you can eat and no DRM".
In that world I'd Pony up, join for a month download everthing and quit. If I had to pay 5 a month forever, no thanks. He'd make more off of me for the occasional purchase of a song I liked. 5 bucks a month for 20 songs max, sure why not.
Tax, surcharge, fee, subscription
by commorancy - 1/10/08 12:24 PM In reply to: I think Tax was the wrong word. by Renegade KnightCall it what you like. Musicians don't deserve this charge to be placed onto everyone's ISP bill ad-infinitum. This is not the place for this kind of charge and it definitely doesn't deserve to be blanketly installed as Reznor implies.
--
Brian W.
My impression from that story...
by scott_wilder - 1/10/08 12:02 PM In reply to: Trent Reznor endorses ISP Tax for Music by commorancywas that Reznor is at a loss for how to build value into recorded music.
People still value concerts enough to pay for tickets because of scarcity. Afterall, how often does NIN roll through Utah. It's called scarcity.
There is no scarcity to recorded music. It's everywhere.
People only pay for music for one of two reasons:
1. A sense of legal obligation
2. A sense of moral obligation
Reason #2 will never convince that non-payers to pay for music.
I hate that the RIAA takes people to court. I do. But I understand it. At the end of the day there is no other way to dissuade people from piracy except to make them experience the consequences of their actions.
Music artists (which I am) need to get over it. Their value is no longer in the CD's they release. But in the relationships they have with their fans. Get back to the old model. Release music freely to entice people to come to your shows. Then tour tour tour. It's time tested to work.
Music history
by commorancy - 1/10/08 12:59 PM In reply to: My impression from that story... by scott_wilderThe value in recorded music was originally there because you couldn't easily replicate a vinyl record at home. It wasn't until cassettes that this somewhat changed. So, you _had_ to buy a record in order to listen. Cassettes are still inferior to vinyl records in may ways. However, people opted to purchase cassettes out of convenience. Purchasing a vinyl record still afforded better quality. When CDs were first introduced, there was also value because you _had_ to buy them. You couldn't initially make them. It wasn't until CD burners were introduced (followed by rippers, mp3 encoders and mp3 players) did that all change.
The value in the music today is now lost because everyone can create music easily and can also copy it easily. There's no exclusive media types any longer. Thus, there is no incentive to purchase physical media or even purchase digital downloads without DRM. DRM was an attempt to place value back onto it by preventing unauthorized use and/or limiting the use. DRM failed.
So, yes, you are correct in that the value for the music isn't so much in the physical distribution of the music but the performance of it. People want to see the band/artist perform the music more than hearing the studio version. For consumers, there is no compelling reason to purchase music today (e.g., a format like vinyl that can't easily be reproduced), so it is much more difficult to incent people to purchase music. Couple this with the ease of P2P, and there you go.
I'm not sure how to reverse this trend, but I do know that blanket taxes, fees, surcharges or subscriptions applied to Internet ISP bills is not the answer. However, at this point in time, concerts are definitely the best avenue to make money over distribution.
--
Brian W.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
